MULTIPLEX MARRIAGES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 241, 6 July 1920, Page 6

MULTIPLEX MARRIAGES

TANGLE FOR THE APPEAL COURT. Mention of what appeared to be a whole series of marriage tangles was made jet-teiday afternoon in the Court of Ap{?„;Z i"r WI S °f C( .' for s P ecirtl le '-»' e to appeaHrom the decision of Mr. Justice blringer m a case heard in 1917, in which he nlmnhff was Thomas Henry I'ox , " lired farmer, of Oamaru, and tho <lefendants, Robert Alexander M'Dowell gram merchant, of Oamaru, -,nd Charles Mwin Davey, solicitor, of Oamaru, exeenters of the will of. Isabella Fox, deceased. On the bench were His Honour Air. Justice Chapman (presiding, Mr. Justice Sim Mr. Justice Striker, M « Mr. Justice Herdmnn. JJf-S P- K.C., who appeared win Mr. A. tan-as junior counsrt, stated that he represented a Mrs.. Williamina Pope-Smith Carson, sister of the testatrix who was left a legacy of .£SOO under tlie will. Mrs. Carson s daughter was tho ultimate residuary beneficiary expectant on tho death of the so-called husband Sn m Si Au ? t!ler Ic 'B alee under the will, Mrs. Stewart, n sister of the testnIV H, */? n] t° 'V? Cct ?.'! b >' thp JHdsmenl of the Court. Mr. Skerrctt stated that when the case was first disposed of all he facts had not beon brought before the Court, and it was upon these facts fh« l . r PI "> l l Wl ?. lwflC(1 - though they had lived together for many years the parties vvere not really married td each other, tor it appeared that they were ,uoth married when they went through a. marriage cercmony-in fact, Ihev both seemed to have been adventurous "in tho matter of matrimony. It was contended, therefore, under the Family Protection Act that Thomas Henry Fox was not entitled to any benefits under the will of the, testarix as he had not been her lawful husband Mr. Skerrett read affidavits which affirmed that the testatrix VL y T? ng ? T n 2 al ™<! to a man named Jabcz Edward Waters, who wns still living but who had deserted his wife for another woman, and that Fox, when ho married testatrix, was tho husband of one Emily Taylor. An affidavit by Fox was also read, which stated that a week after he married Emily Taylor she told him thnt she wns nlready a married woman, and should not have manned him. Ihoy then parted. During the course of his long married life with testatrix, she had never informed Wm that eho had been married to Waters. Counsel submitted that the justice of the case required thnt it snould bo reopened. It was not sought to disturb past payments, but it _ wns desired that Fox should not receive any further benefits. Mr. Skerrctt uiaintained that there had been a miscarnage of justice, and that Fox had no moral right to havo taken part in any benefits under tho will of the testatrix.

Mr. Myers pointed out thnt Sirs. Stewart was not a part); to the proceedings, and tho Court was entitled to draw the miorenco .that she wns satisfied with tho position as it wns. In the will, testatrix referred to Fox as her "husband." Mrs Carson had not raised tho issue before and in the case heard by Mr. Justice Mnnger she had an opportunity, or should have had an opportunity, of 'knowing all the facts. 'Mrs. CarscaThad stntvd previously that she did not want to scandalise her dead sister, but she was doing so now. Mr, Myers contended that Fox was "de facto" tho husband of tfie testatrix, and therefore morally, even if not legally, entitled to benefits under the Till.

Mr. Justice Chapmnn remnrked that to entitle a husband to secure proper provision it must be established that he was the husband.

Mr.iMyers said that Fox had lived with testatrix for over 30 years, and always lx-lievcd himself to be her husband. Fox had no knowledge cf tho marriage of testatrix to Waters until the present action had been brought, and Mr. Skerretl's client 'had refrained' from bringing the facts forward at the time Mr. Justice Stringer gave his decision. The further hearing of tho case was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.